To close this thread.
I gave up on the drive after it showed abysmal benchmarking results in
windows too.
I owed everyone an update, which I just finished typing:
Am Donnerstag, 2. August 2012 schrieb Marc MERLIN:
I'll try plugging this SSD in a totally different PC and see what
happens. This may say if it's an AHCI/intel sata driver problem.
Seems we will continue until someone starts to complain here. Maybe
another list will be more
Am Donnerstag, 2. August 2012 schrieb Marc MERLIN:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:57:39PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Its getting quite strange.
I would agree :)
Before I paste a bunch of thing, I wanted to thank you for not giving up on
me
and offering your time to help me figure
Am Donnerstag, 2. August 2012 schrieb Marc MERLIN:
So, doctor, is it bad? :)
randomwrite: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=2K-16K/2K-16K, ioengine=libaio,
iodepth=64
sequentialwrite: (g=1): rw=write, bs=2K-16K/2K-16K, ioengine=libaio,
iodepth=64
randomread: (g=2): rw=randread, bs=2K-16K/2K-16K,
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 01:18:07PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
I've the the fio tests in:
/dev/mapper/cryptroot /var btrfs
rw,noatime,compress=lzo,nossd,discard,space_cache 0 0
… you are still using dm_crypt?
That was my biggest partition and so far I've found no performance
Am Donnerstag, 2. August 2012 schrieb Marc MERLIN:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 01:18:07PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
I've the the fio tests in:
/dev/mapper/cryptroot /var btrfs
rw,noatime,compress=lzo,nossd,discard,space_cache 0 0
… you are still using dm_crypt?
[…]
I just took
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:20:07PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Hey, whats this? With Ext4 you have really good random read performance
now! Way better than the Intel SSD 320 and…
Yep, my du -sh tests do show that ext4 is 2x faster than btrfs.
Obviously it's sending IO in a way that either
Am Donnerstag, 2. August 2012 schrieb Marc MERLIN:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:20:07PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Hey, whats this? With Ext4 you have really good random read performance
now! Way better than the Intel SSD 320 and…
Yep, my du -sh tests do show that ext4 is 2x faster
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:42:39AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
https://oss.oracle.com/~mason/latencytop.patch
Thanks for the patch, and yes I can confirm I'm definitely not pegged on CPU
(not even close and I get the same problem with unencrypted filesystem,
actually
du -sh is exactly the
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
So, clearly, there is something wrong with the samsung 830 SSD with linux
It it were a random crappy SSD from a random vendor, I'd blame the SSD, but
I have a hard time believing that samsung is selling SSDs that are slower
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:08:46PM +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
It it were a random crappy SSD from a random vendor, I'd blame the SSD, but
I have a hard time believing that samsung is selling SSDs that are slower
than hard drives at random IO and 'seeks'.
You'd be surprised on how
On 01/08/12 16:01, Marc MERLIN wrote:
Third, A freshly made ntfs filesystem through fuse is actually FASTER!
Could it be that Samsungs FTL has optimisations in it for NTFS ?
A horrible thought, but not impossible..
--
Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
--
To
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 04:36:22PM +1000, Chris Samuel wrote:
On 01/08/12 16:01, Marc MERLIN wrote:
Third, A freshly made ntfs filesystem through fuse is actually FASTER!
Could it be that Samsungs FTL has optimisations in it for NTFS ?
A horrible thought, but not impossible..
Not
Hi Marc,
Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2012 schrieb Marc MERLIN:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:08:46PM +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
It it were a random crappy SSD from a random vendor, I'd blame the
SSD, but I have a hard time believing that samsung is selling SSDs
that are slower than hard
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:42:03AM -0600, Marc MERLIN wrote:
22 seconds for 15K files on an SSD is super slow and being 5 times
slower than a spinning disk with the same data.
What's going on?
Hi Marc,
The easiest way to figure out is with latencytop. I'd either run the
latencytop gui or
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 07:08:35AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:42:03AM -0600, Marc MERLIN wrote:
22 seconds for 15K files on an SSD is super slow and being 5 times
slower than a spinning disk with the same data.
What's going on?
Hi Marc,
The easiest way to
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 09:56:26AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
find is fast, du is much slower:
merkaba:~ echo 3 /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ; time ( find /usr | wc -l )
404166
( find /usr | wc -l; ) 0,03s user 0,07s system 1% cpu 9,212 total
merkaba:~ echo 3 /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:42:03PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
I just realized that the older thread got a bit confusing, so I'll keep
problems separate and make things simpler :)
Since yesterday, I tried other kernels, including noprempt, volprempt and
preempt for 3.4.4.
I also tried a default
Am Montag, 23. Juli 2012 schrieb Marc MERLIN:
I just realized that the older thread got a bit confusing, so I'll keep
problems separate and make things simpler :)
On an _unencrypted_ partition on the SSD, running du -sh on a directory
with 15K files, takes 23 seconds on unencrypted SSD and 4
19 matches
Mail list logo
